A one way causal connection cannot be observed. If neurons cause consciousness, but consciousness does absolutely not affect anything else, then there is literally no way to observe consciousness, and so you must in addition to the description of the causal universe include the fact that there are things that are affected by the universe’s existence but does not affect the universe, and furthermore that consciousness is one such thing.
A strictly simpler theory is that there is a causal universe, without all that epiphenomea cruft.
Also, the viewpoint of epiphenomenal consciousness is very much triggering my pattern maching of ‘human specific inbuilt stupidity’.
On a side note,remember that there are no fundamental photons nor light cones. There is only whatever QFT is the true one; the rest are mathematical consequences.
A one way causal connection cannot be observed. If neurons cause consciousness, but consciousness does absolutely not affect anything else, then there is literally no way to observe consciousness, and so you must in addition to the description of the causal universe include the fact that there are things that are affected by the universe’s existence but does not affect the universe, and furthermore that consciousness is one such thing.
A strictly simpler theory is that there is a causal universe, without all that epiphenomea cruft.
Also, the viewpoint of epiphenomenal consciousness is very much triggering my pattern maching of ‘human specific inbuilt stupidity’.
How’s this different from the case photon leaving my future light cone?
it is different because the mathematical model of the universe makes a mention of the photon, but not of the consciousness.
In a theoretical future version of python, the photon example would be:
While the conssciousness example would be:
On a side note,remember that there are no fundamental photons nor light cones. There is only whatever QFT is the true one; the rest are mathematical consequences.